linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] cgroup, docs: be specific about bandwidth control of rt processes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aCziA1tUAnnGId6_@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 10:11:47 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: shashank.mahadasyam@...y.com
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shinya Takumi <shinya.takumi@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] cgroup, docs: be specific about bandwidth control
 of rt processes

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:07:45PM +0900, Shashank Balaji via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Shashank Balaji <shashank.mahadasyam@...y.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shashank Balaji <shashank.mahadasyam@...y.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> index 1a16ce68a4d7f6f8c9070be89c4975dbfa79077e..3b3685736fe9b12e96a273248dfb4a8c62a4b698 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> @@ -1076,7 +1076,7 @@ cpufreq governor about the minimum desired frequency which should always be
>  provided by a CPU, as well as the maximum desired frequency, which should not
>  be exceeded by a CPU.
>  
> -WARNING: cgroup2 cpu controller doesn't yet fully support the control of
> +WARNING: cgroup2 cpu controller doesn't yet support the (bandwidth) control of

This reads weird to me. Without the () part, it becomes "doesn't yet support
the control of". Maybe rephrase it a bit more?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun